Monday, August 29, 2011

"Rick Perry is more rigidly conservative than [George W. ] Bush, more resistant to compromise and more anti-establishment."

At last, everything that this nation, overdone with tax-and-spend statist, has been looking for.

Social Security -- Rick Perry wants to initiate private accounts, which President George W. Bush attempt to initiate in 2005. Social Security is insolvent, whether the country and its citizens are willing to acknowledge it or not. Individuals deserve to keep every penny they earn, seeing none of it siphoned to compensate the early and unacceptable retirement of current workers, who ultimately refused to be responsible enough to save for their future.

Healthcare -- Repeal Obamacare, Repeal Obamacare, Repeal Obamacare. Excellent, Mr. Perry! He is the chief executive whom Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is looking for! In his book "Fed Up!", Perry makes the case for the same private, free-market initiatives which will free up the insurance industry, promote competition, and instill accountability in individual clients without driving premiums. 1) tort reform, individual health insurance, portability of plans across state lines -- the LA Times neglects to mention Insurance Savings Accounts and tax credits on the amount of money deposited in them.

National Defense -- Here, Perry is more out of step with his Tea Party following. Limited government requires limited funding of military largess. The United States does not have to retreat into a pacifist torpor, but this nation outlays too much money for national defense, most of it sucked up in wasteful pork barrel expenditures.

Politics -- The LA Times slams Governor Perry for being more uncompromising than the current crop of Republicans in the House of Representatives. That unyielding executive inflexibility is exactly what this country needs in the White House. Perry, a conservative stalwart not afraid to conflict with his own party and the Texas legislature, would be the perfect storm of ambition to break up the potential one-party factionalism that would invade Washington if the Republicans sweep the Senate as well as keep the House and win the Presidency.

The last things this country needs is another term of George W. Bush Government hegemony, which burdened this country from 2005 to 2007, exploding the national debt and broadening the encroachment of the state, from the bill of attainder over Terry Schiavo, to the monstrous pork-laden transportation handout, to the Medicare entitlement, a welcome sop to seniors that will further this country on the road to ruin.

The LA Times is a reliable center-left publication, more pragmatic than progressive, yet its betrayed bias in favor of left-wing statist involvement, including near cheer-leading for President Obama, colors any meaningful analysis of Governor Perry's political assets (not liabilities).

Like the sclerotic statues of Ancient Greece and Rome, which sought to enshrine an official history of the tyrants who terrorized nations and oppressed their people, the Washington Mall has erected a marble, bas-relief edifice commemorating the work, legacy, and legend of Civil Rights Leader Dr. Martin Luther King.

Yet his legacy is mixed, though certainly praise-worthy.

Yes, his nonviolent efforts to end segregation were praiseworthy. He relied on spiritual power, nonviolence which coerced local governments to change, institutions too long immured to micromanaging the lives of their citizens, black and white. The Montgomery Alabama bus boycott was a stunning, though prolonged, victory.

Sadly, for a man who moved so many to speak up for the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, his moral failings were an adverse distraction.

From his attendance at communist rallies in the South, to the allegations of plagiarism, to his marital infidelities, Dr. King was a man, a human being with moral failings.

Also, it seems somewhat misplaced to place so much of the power and glory on one man, when the Civil Rights Movement depended on so many people, both black and white.

His dream, that one day "the sons of slaves and the sons of slave owners would sit at the same table of brotherhood," although great Utopian rhetoric, will never pan out as long as mankind maintains his innate capacity to discriminate.

Still, Dr. King's investment in supporting minorities to be treated equally under the rule of law deserves to be recognized.

Once again, the overreaching public sector pounces on the rich, as though they have the solution to all our problems.

To the point, the public unions in the state of California have continued to cast the wealth as the unrighteous and unfair repository of all the money which the state needs but has been sorely lacking to fund public services, like education, police, and fire.

Specifically, they target Prop 13, which shackled the Sacramento from passing a tax increase without a two-thirds concurring vote from both chambers of the legislature, along with setting the property taxes for properties in 1978, until sold to another proprietor.

Yet what ails that state of California, like every other state in the Union and the Federal Government, is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Without Prop 13, politicians would have taxed the state raw, causing business and property owners to flee, a la New Jersey, where the Garden State endure 110 tax increases, yet shouldering the greatest percentage of public debt to GDP in the entire nation.

Instead of attacking those who have money and invest in wisely, state agencies would do better to economize in turn, or face the dreaded backlash of cuts and shut-downs which mark every state government across the country.

The Rich are not the problem. If properly heeded, their skills and finesse with finances would be the saving grace for the public sector.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Eddie: There are three things that Black people need to tell the truth about. Number one: Rodney King should've gotten his ass beat for being drunk in a Honda in a white part of Los Angeles. Number two: O.J. did it! And number three: Rosa Parks didn't do nuthin' but sit her Black ass down! ("Barbershop (2002))

When it comes to the true experience of minorities in the media, film or Television, an elderly black man gets to speak his mind on a number of issues.

Opinionated black men like Fred G. Sanford from "Sanford and Son" or Eddie from "Barbershop" get to speak the truth, tell it like it is, blowing up all pretensions of political correctness.

White audiences enjoy these characters in part because they speak their mind -- not just their own mind as outspoken characters in themselves, but also speak for the resentful unrest of those who see the color divide as an excuse which enables an entitlement victimhood mentality among minorities.

Sanford and Eddie can tell the truth about certain black folks, yet not be tagged as racist or prejudiced. If a white person made the racist, off-color, or politically charged statements by these black men, they would be ostracized, labeled racist, or even demagogued with civil rights lawsuits.

In this case, the human being witnesses a real event, a true event, one that cannot be rejected or repudiated, yet which cannot be rationally explained. Whether on is discussing the effortless flight of a bumblebee, whose anatomical construction renders it in theory aerodynamically inaccurate, or the love between two people who strike many as incompatible, these events do occur in real time. They cannot be explained, but they do occur.

The other is faith as probability.

Our minds function more along this form of faith, whether human beings concede this fact or not. That the sun will rise tomorrow, that I will be alive, that the job site where an individual works will be there, all are ultimately acted upon as a matter of fact, since there is no certainty of these events or phenomena occurring until they actually do.

Human beings operated on faith as probability all the time. Our assumptions generally work out: the sun does rise, we are still alive, our workplaces -- whether we like it or not -- are still there waiting for us.

Yet the faith as mystery requires each of us to face the ultimate questions of reality and purpose. The environment we live in, the world where we find ourselves, the intricacies of the human organism, all cry out, all witness to some intelligent design at work. Yet the source and identity of this designing force puzzles many, who or what it is, how it came -- or comes -- about, and what they whole creation was about in the first place, come to surface in the mind.

The wind, too, and other natural phenomena, exist in nature, yet defy concrete, extensive rational explanation. Though an observer does not see the wind, yet each person senses the effects of the wind, whether as gentle breeze or terrifying hurricane.

Whatever explanations one conjures up to explain these outrageous, initially inexplicable phenomena, all fall under the category of faith as mystery.

The Tea Party Movement is a quintessential example of spontaneous order.

Activist throughout the country have congregated to speak out against Big Government, Runaway spending, and the National Debts which is eating this country away.

Spontaneous order is essential to free markets, in which the indeterminate number of exchanges and processes which move economies along cannot be planned or outlined in advanced. The volatile tremors which spook investors or sway consumers simply cannot be predicted.

Furthermore, goods and services which rely on extensive time and management cannot be done by one supervising mind. One famous quip remarks: "You cannot make a pencil."

Since the power of the Tea Party Movement rests to a greater extent in its spontaneous order, political alliances would undermine its power to influence key legislators and enact necessary change.

The Tea Party Movement is a Go.

Tea Party Affiliation is acceptable.

Tea Party candidates are a no-go; just consider the unfortunate results of the special House election in upstate New York, in which another safe Republican seat went to a Democrat because a third-party tea-party spoiler.

It is shameful, if not out right dangerous, for a married couple to enter the United States illegally, knowing full well the laws in place to discourage such behavior, and the consequences of getting caught.

If they refuse to wait in line to naturalize like the large number of huddled masses seeking freedom, then there is no guilt or shame in sending them back.

The situation, at least emotionally, becomes more complicated when the couple brings children, born in their home country, to the United States.

Those babies grow up as Americans in the United States, even though they are still illegal aliens. The tragedy, at least for the children, is that they did not ask to come into this country illegally, nor did they have any say in the matter. They were forced to take on the status of illegitimacy.

Yet Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) and other anti-illegal immigration politicians are right to stand their ground on the issue. If the parents entered the country illegally, then they need to leave. They need to get back in line, they need to enter and apply for citizenship legally.

Still, the emotional toil of witnessing parents taken from their children is heart-breaking. For children to be informed that they will be forced to leave the country because they are in this country illegally, through no will or fault of their own, is terrible.

Yet the blame cannot rest on the shoulders of the state and local governments, which have a right and duty to enforce their borders and the immigration laws of this nation. The United States has prospered because it is a nation under the rule of law, with a rich legacy of promoting individual freedom and civil rights, especially against the encroachment of the government. A nation ceases to be a nation under the rule of law if if permits unfettered immigration, in which the proper authorities are unable to evaluate the efficacy or wisdom in

Nor should the blame rest on the children, although they ultimately bare the brunt of the illegal actions of their parents.

If anyone should be held morally culpable for this tragic situation, it must be the couple, the parents who entered the country illegally in the first place. Shamelessly did they sneak into the country, openly flouting the law of the land though hiding in the shadows. They must have known, or at least have engaged in the back of their minds, that there would always be the possibility of being caught and sent back. They must have, or at least should have considered the impact that such an outcome would have on their children, whether legal or illegal.

Yet they took the risk, nonetheless.

I believe that Judge Gray's placing the full blame on the state is unjustified, if not unconscionable. Whatever the motives may be for members of Congress to refuse to act on this issue, the deliberate dysfunction of the federal government alone should not be the only source for blame. Twice before, in 2005 and 2007, Congress attempted to draft legislation, with some offering a time-table for which immigrants would be allowed to pay a fine versus those who would be required to leave.

Yet in spite of the rhetoric and emotion which colors this debate, the law is the law. If illegals choose to skirt the law and enter this country illegal, they do so at their own risk, and they should be held fully accountable, especially for endangering the welfare and safety of their own children, whether they were also brought into this country illegally, or to make matters more complicated, they were born here and are natural citizens.

There are some options for mitigating the long-term problems associated with this issue:

Why is it so difficult to become a naturalized citizen in the United States? The process for naturalization must be streamlined to permit future citizens to learn English, understand the laws and customs of this country, appreciate the rule of law, and then make themselves at home. The current cost and time is so great, than many would rather take the risk of getting caught and sneak in to the country.

The welfare state is a draw for illegal immigrants, regardless of what Judge Gray says. An open immigration policy and a generous welfare state simply cannot coexist in one country. Dismantle the welfare state, simplify the naturalization process, and the laws of supply and demand will moderate the levels of immigration entering this country.

Support free market policies in other nations: yes, a long shot at best, especially for near-failed states like Mexico, which cannot defend their people from narco-thugs who intimidate entire states and police departments. Still, the United States cannot be in the business of propping up rogue leaders and failed nations with international loans, only to see the money squandered on military equipment and larger security forces, none of which protect the people or root out the deeper causes of political dysfunction.

End the drug war. No policy has more failed to live up to its outstanding goals and expectations than the ongoing attempt to curb the harvesting and distribution of illegal drugs. By rolling back this failed policy around the world, at least from the United States, citizens in impoverished nations would be less pressured to leave their countries because of political instability.

Other proposals include offering a guest-worker program, which would permit citizens of another country to enter periodically to accomplish available labor, then return back to their home countries. This option, though controversial, would allow businesses to capitalize on the cheap labor to accomplish tasks which other Americans are not willing to do. The security issues and the moral-political implications of along a sub-strata of individuals to enter the country at length, however, do pose greater difficulties requiring further consideration.

Helen Keller, a civil rights pioneer and role-model for self-improvement, is known primarily for overcoming the scarlet fever which robbed her of her sight and hearing.

Raised in an atavistic fashion by her parents, who spoiled her out of pity for her condition, they sought help from Anne Sullivan, a teacher for the blind whose own sight had been restored following surgery.

After repeated efforts, Sullivan was able to teacher young Helen that objects had a meaning, a word which she would sign into the young lady's hand.

Following the ingenious discovery, Keller became a knowledgeable woman, excelling as a reader and activist.

The source of her activism, unfortunately, would be the source of another attach of blindness, one which would not only cloud the judgment of this remarkable woman, but which frustrate the development of third-world countries, stifling innovation in developed nations, and instigate the greatest political mass-murder wave in history.

Yet Progressives of the early twentieth century were blind, not physically but morally and philosophically, championing the Thomas Paine's nonsensical notion that "We have it in our power to change the world." No, we do not, nor should we.

Helen Keller became a socialist, a political philosophy which broadens state control to create more equitable societies.

Keller explains her initiation into the philosophy:

"First — How did I become a Socialist? By reading. The first book I read was Wells' New World for Old. I read it on Mrs. Macy's [Anne Sullivan's married name]recommendation. She was attracted by its imaginative quality, and hoped that its electric style might stimulate and interest me. When she gave me the book, she was not a Socialist and she is not a Socialist now. Perhaps she will be one before Mr. Macy and I are done arguing with her." (From Helen Keller Reference Archive -- "How I Became a Socialist")

H. G. Wells, like many socialists of his time, believed that modern man had the power to reform the world, in such a way to eliminate the grinding poverty and inequality that plagued so many people.

Yet socialism suffers from an enduring and inescapable fallacy, the fatal conceit, as coined by renowned Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek. Implied in "the fatal conceit" is the inescapable fact that No matter how many enlightened minds gather together to design a society and implement its leadership, they cannot foresee the needs, wants, and resources which complex economies require. Socialism sounds great in theory, yet never works out in practice, failing to account for the inherent myopia in theoretical minds.

Rationalism, the theory of mind which posits all reality within a person's capacity to think, relies exclusively on abstraction, too far divorced from reality and the indeterminate number of variations and changes which may affect the planning and allocation of resources.
﻿

Helen Keller (c. 1904-1905)

The myopia of the mind is inevitable. The human capacity for reflection relies extensively on the information which it receives. Any abstractions which follow will be forever limited, no matter how painstaking one's erudition and intellect. We human beings may plan the way we go, but to the Lord belong the steps (after the Proverbs).

Sadly, the blind hubris of intellectuals has led them, nonetheless, to believe that they can fix the core elements of society, that they can manipulate markets, foresee demands, or at least control the means and outcome of production through central planning. This noxious arrogance, endemic to the Progressive-Socialist, of which Helen Keller was one, would lead the United States to experiment with eugenics early in the twentieth century, as well as give rise to two World Wars, the second of which instigate by a German National-Socialist state. The Communist regimes that followed, which dominated from Eastern Europe to South East Asia, would impose violent means to create a "worker's paradise" of equality, engendering chaoe, corruption, and death in its wake.

How bitterly one must reflect when reading of Helen Keller's naive enthusiasm for the rise of Socialist Republics:

"I am no worshiper of cloth of any color, but I love the red flag and what it symbolizes to me and other Socialists. I have a red flag hanging in my study, and if I could I should gladly march with it past the office of the [New York] Times and let all the reporters and photographers make the most of the spectacle." Helen Keller proudly bore the banner of Socialism in her early life.

Yet It was the red flag draped from Trieste in the Adriatic to the Baltic, under which the blood of many innocents was shed. It was the red flag that still flies over Tienanmen Square in Beijing, where Communist forces crushed a popular democratic uprising.

The visionary blindness of socialism would inadvertently steal the sight of the very woman who was celebrated throughout the world for overcoming nearly congenital defects of birth.

What a tragic irony, that Helen Keller would learn about politics and economics from such blind and hapless thinkers, which in turn blinded an intrepid learner--who had fared so well in community and with private assistance.

The 2004 state funeral of 40th President Ronald Reagan drew the attention of millions throughout the world, from heads of state to civilians in remote nations.

From the state funeral in Washington to his final internment in Simi Valley, Ronald Reagan belongs not just to the ages, but the imaginations of those who lived and worked with him in their day, and to the future generations who learned of him and his legacy.

Reagan's final words, so to speak, etched onto the tomb in which he was interred, however, expose a dark veneer to the political legacy of his resurgent conservatism and American optimism which captivated the United States and ushered in a new era of American dominance:

"I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life."

Man is not good. How could the President who faced off against the Soviet Union, justly casting the Communist menace "an evil empire," harbinger of disease and death for millions through visionary Marxism, then declare in his final resting place, the inherent "goodness" of man?

Man is not good. It is man's inhumanity to man which characterizes the widespread crime and corruption plaguing every society. From the knowledge of right and wrong, man is inclined to do wrong, unless watched or warned, and even then much of the time he resorts still to wrongdoing. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, whose political genius recast a backward nation into the bastion of freedom that it is today, remarked soberly:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
Federalist #51

Man is not good; men are not angels. This fundamental appreciation of human nature is a central value which guided the deliberation and design of the United States Constitution. Coming from one whose oath of office for the Presidency, included the duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, Reagan's radical reversal against a millenia of natural and political philosophy is laughable, if not treasonous.

"What is right will always eventually triumph". The progenitor of the modern Conservative political philosophy, Edmund Burke, remarked otherwise: "All that is
necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Faith may move mountains, but the faithful must believe in something worthy of faith. Moreover, one must speak to the mountain, exercising the faith and effecting the removal of the mountain. By submission to authorities (tradition, constraints on self-indulgence) greater than oneself, and effecting the rights and liberties engaged to us by our Creator, we then will witness the triumph of what is right. Let us never fall into the slovenly belief that what is right lies squarely, and exclusively, within ourselves, or that what is right will manifest itself simply by our wishing for the abstract notion of right to make itself known and apparent.

"There is purpose and worth to each and every life." The one clause which speaks truth eternally and temporally, Reagan pronounced merely the obvious, which in itself is more obfuscation than clarification. Everyone, even the most depressed suicide to the most narcissistic self-serving sycophant, believes that his or her life has purpose and worth. The question we must all ponder--a political as well as moral question--is where does this worth come from? Does it come from ourselves, from our communities, from the Government, or from God? Who decides that I have worth? What is that worth? And how much is that worth worth to me? Will I stand up for it, and will I stand up for the worth of others? Will I defend the worth only of those who are friends? What about those whom I do not know, or whom I do not like?

As far as purpose is concerned, even the catastrophic philosophical monomaniac Emmanuel Kant conceded that "the human heart refuses to believe in world without purpose." The heart, ever the lonely hunter, pursues this purpose, though, much of the time to the detriment of its owner or those around him, even his countrymen. "The heart is evil above all things; who can know it?" The weeping prophet moaned. Indeed.

Even the pleonasm "each and every" highlights the comfort-measure emptiness of Ronald Reagan's America-loving, big-government bashing, heart-stirring candor. Optimism is a worthy vehicle for change, yet the destination and the means of promulgating this optimism cannot fly in the face of man's inherent depravity and initial confusion, who being scarcely half-made is flung up into a world filled with answers, which tragically instigate more troubling questions and concerns, as opposed to benign sunshine certainty.

Ronald Reagan, a consistent communicator until his death, did not live up to the design of the nation which he led for eight stormy, eventful, and prosperous years. His contorted vision of despising government and praising the humanity of man only brewed the incompatible mix of compassionate conservatism, which has driven this nation to wage unnecessary wars in the Middle East for “freedom and democracy”, then burden future generations with over-generous entitlement obligations, finally to swallow up the substance and style of the state with debts and deficits, all unthinkable in the days of the Framers.

With Reagan's parting words, the Conservative Movement (and the Republican Party) must part from the figurehead-executive who made the rally-cry against Big Government a populist movement, as well as a popular one, though hardly heeding its purpose. Now, the American people must make the unpopular decisions of doing without all that their ancestors had done without in times past, but have now been lulled into think that they cannot do without now. From the Tea Party to the Austrian Economists to the fiscal conservatives throughout the nation, now is the time to look past the naive optimist of the Gipper and embrace the skeptical cynicism of Madison, Burke, and Barry Goldwater, all who flew in the face of popular sentiment to promote a necessary vision of the Federal Government, a process of constraint, limited to protecting our rights, securing our borders, and returning all other powers to the states and the people.

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other." -- The New York Times Magazine (14 November 1965), p. 174

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." --Reason Magazine (1 July 1975)

"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."--Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, January 20, 1981.

"I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself."
--Joke at the Gridiron Club annual dinner. (24 March 1984)

"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not." --(Testimony to the Tower Commission) (4 March 1987)

President Ronald Reagan advocated the style of limited government, yet the substance was sorely lacking, like the disembodied spirit of the Headless Horseman, or Drake McHugh, Reagan's star-breaking role in the 1942 film Kings Row, sans lower appendanges. McHugh Cutting tax rates across the board early in his first term jumpstarted the economy, long lagging under stagflation and anemic growth. However, Reagan did not tackle entitlements, which were predicted to eat away at the dwindling revenue of the United States Treasury, an all too somber reality which today's political class and outraged populace are grappling with.

The United States now, more than every, needs specific policy, not just politics, to fend off the economic calamities poised to take down this nation.

Despite Reagan's pithy with, government is the necessary evil, the part of the solution to the problem of Big Government Getting Bigger.

Consider James Madison's oft-quoted passage in Federalist #51:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

Unlike the exclusive attacks against Big Government itself, Madison focused in on the root causes of outrageous Government, the people themselves.

Madison continues:

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

It is necessary condition that government plays a role in governing, both the people and itself. Afterwards, Madison writes:

"A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

We cannot dismiss the required role of government entirely in the growing concern to stop the growth of government. Furthermore, we must recognize the need not just to cut taxes, or even to cut spending, but to induce checks and balances within the systems of government, which will frustrate the divisive and self-serving ambitions of unangelic mankind. A discussion for limiting government cannot excoriate or exclude government, just as demonizing the systems of rule in society as one never-satisfied digestive system does not cure what ails the entire body.

Popular uproar against Government must include unpopular denunciation of state and individual dependence on government. Otherwise, the result is Conservatism without the constraints, or a conservatism that conserves nothing, or a handicapped conservatism that goes nowhere, just like Reagan's character in the movie "King's Row", Drake McHugh, who has both legs amputated by a vengeful surgeon.

Those who appeal for a Reagan Revival as resurgence for fiscal discipline will find very little in Reagan's active legacy to support his impressive rhetoric.

"Where's the rest of us?" will be the untimely discovery by conservatives, the Republican party, and the nation if we do not fuse persuasion with necessary, though unpopular, budget-cutting action.

George Will, erudite conservative columnist and early cheer leader for the Reagan Revolution, ruefully remarked nearly twenty years later:

"Reagan's popularity was largely the result of "his blaming government for problems that are inherent in democracy itself."

and

""Under Reagan, Americans could live off government and hate it at the same time. Americans blamed government for their dependence upon it." "

and

"If the defining doctrine of the Republican Party is limited government, the party must move up from nostalgia and leaven its reverence for Reagan with respect for Madison. " (Source, "Reagan's Conservatism, George Will quoting John Patrick Diggins)

A great rhetor from his training as an actors and his experience as spokesman/salesman for General Electric, Ronald Reagan knew who to frame the argument against Big Government in such a way as to absolve the American People from their part in its gargantuan growth.

The Tea Party, the current populist movement swarming across the country, wants to stop the spending, stop the growth of government, and stop the federal power grab of state authority and individual rights . . .Not just talk about it.

Unless the voters face the current encroachment of state dependence in their lives and cut it off, certainly to their own immediate detriment, there will be no change in the way that government has continued to do business.

Voters will have to tell themselves and their legislators, the same way the Ronald Reagan would scold the chimpanzee under his tutelage in "Bedtime for Bonzo", not to touch, not to take, not to grow, not to demand.

Today, a committed minority of politicians, because of the will of their like-minded states' rights constituents and red-blue libertarian leanings, are storming Congress, thwarting tax-and spend wastrel legislation. They are bearing the brunt of wide-spread, strident mainstream media hostility as hostage takers and terrorists, only because their voters back home demand that government start behaving itself and playing by the rules set down by Madison and Company during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, not merely the heated ant-government hot air of the Republican Conventions of 1964 and 1980.

If we are to despise the advancement of the state, which necessarily curbs our freedoms and limits our opportunities, then we the voters must acknowledge that the fault of Big Government is not in our stars, or in our pols, but in ourselves, in that we for too long have expected the government to plug along providing for our imagined needs and wants now, and letting someone else pay later.

That "someone else" is us, that "later" is now, and no chiding the process of Constitutional Government or Reaganite hedonism will deter that.

Ronald Reagan, the B-list actor turned A-list President, the consistent conservative who transformed Goldwater's wisdom into a winning electoral landslide sixteen, then twenty years later, is coming under attack lately.

Historians revisiting his legacy of anti-Big Government rhetoric, free-market investitures, and military build-up against the Soviet are striking out against the gargantuan debt devouring this country. They also are reconsidering the foreign policy which invested the Mujaheddin with arms first to beat back the Communists in Central America, then the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Even Michael Moore derisively remarked that Osama bin Laden, trained as an operative by the CIA, used his paramilitary skills to kill the three thousands people: 9-11.

No one would argue with any logical or moral caliber that Ronald Reagan is directly, or even indirectly, responsible for the Islamic Radical attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Nor do we regret his effective rhetoric to permit pundits, politicians, and the people to discuss the unsightly and unconscionable growth of government.

Yet in light of the policies which directed this country from a crushing recession into extensive economic recovery, which repositioned this nation from a feckless policy of detente to confrontation unwavering against the Soviet Union, the United States must craft different domestic and foreign policy for the current pressing issues, not simply mimic ape-like the moves of the 40th President, like Modern Day Bedtime of Bonzo types!

When the Moralist Military Dictator Oliver Cromwell plotted not just the annihilation of the Irish, the migration of the Jews to the emptied Emerald Isle, along with the shuttering of gambling houses, the stifling of free speech, and martial law throughout Great Britain, his erstwhile supporters could think only one way to curb his power:

Crown him King of England, and establish another royal dynasty styled the House of Cromwell. The visionary tyrant summarily refused the backhanded compliment.

An ironic turn to modern democratic sympathies, a king's divine right was intended to curb the power of the monarch, tying his leadership to people, the land, the culture, and the historical identity of the people.

In the First Book of Kings, the Israelites repudiated the leadership of the the final judge, Samuel, demanding instead a King, one who would fight their battles for them.

In Ancient Times, Julius Caesar refused to be crowned king, preferring to rule as Perpetual General Consul.

In the Gospel of John, when the crowds contemplating making Jesus a king, a military leader who would always provided them bread (and perhaps circuses), Jesus fled.

For whatever long-range purpose, crowds seek to create a king to supply their needs (at the expense of others), controlling one man to meet the needs of the many. Hardly a promotion to absolute power, but a royal flourish to enslave a man to the will of the people.

Modern Dictators wish to sweep away the past, recreate reality, and define power in terms of their arbitrary will. A king, even to have authority, must resort to his status as a leader in a lineage and a legacy, all of which bind him to the people and the land, no matter how poorly he may serve them, or how self-serving he may be.

For this reasons, Cromwell's supporters proffered a crown, to keep Cromwell from wreaking havoc on the English countryside, its people, and their posterity, including their legacy of civil right.

Friday, August 26, 2011

House Speaker Thomas B. Reed ruled the United States House of Representatives with a rod of iron.

His lasting accomplished, during the Gilded Age of wealth and free market prosperity during the latter half of the nineteenth century, Reed manipulated safe Republican majorities (whipped into power by the pull of the bloody shirt guilt against Democrats who has sympathized with the South and the Confederacy during the nations Civil War)

He snidely derided the parliamentary procedures which stymied enthusiastic majorities, the Republican juggernaut dead set on passing power-hungry legislation, including massive appropriation bills. Unfortunately, his petulant impatience flew in the face of James Madison's wisdom, confirming the Founding Father's concern about dedicated factions who would impoverish the state, or one class of the nation, for the benefit of another.

Starting with the Radical Republicans of the 1860s and 1870s cared more about power than the needs of minorities. The liberal Republican hegemony fell into the hands of monied interests interested in stifling innovation and protecting public monopoly.

House Speaker Reed would lock members into the chamber, forcing a vote. He would dismiss dilatory tactics, like motions to require roll calls. Yet these measures were the essential safeguards which prevented the more populist chamber in Congress from heedlessly passing expensive legislation, at great cost to taxpayers.

Reed boasted of the first Billion Dollar Congress under his tenure, yet the tax-and-spend profligacy of the Gilded Age came at a great process, the necessary deliberation of two legislative chambers and a strong executive, who would force extensive compromise or kill legislative largess outright.

Throughout the Federalist Papers, Madison opined that a government whose powers were separated inconveniently would prevent factions from despoiling one segment of society at the expense of the other. Unfortunately, Madison did not foresee the lasting damage inflicted by the Civil War, in which the party that championed Federal strength at the expense of the states would not only hold onto power, but would push out the opposition from any meaningful input or impact in government.

With a president who was either reduced (Johnson) or merely a rubber stamp (Grant, Hayes, Harrison), Congress had its way with spending sprees, government growth, and deficit spending, a legacy which has plagued this nation, up to now.

Ron Paul, libertarian of limited means and growing appeal, was snidely, and now perhaps prematurely, dismissed by the political class and the mainstream media (and even established conservatices of similar sympathies, like George Will). He is surging into the spot light.

He finished second place in the 2011 Iowa Straw Poll, he finished first in the AMPAC poll earlier this year.

Now his polling in a dead heat with Governor Rick Perry (whom Paul humorously cast as more extreme for his anti-government rhetoric) and Governor Mitt Romney.

The nation is catching Pual's libertarian spirit. Enough with Big Government! Enough with handouts, help outs, bailouts that impoverish the present and undermine the future!

No more wars with dithering missions, unclear in outcome from the outset. The American people are tired of wondering why the United States has invested both blood and treasure in one hostile of the region of the world after the other, only to see our time, money, and youth spent to mixed results with accompanying political dysfunction.

Government should be doing something for the people, shouldn't it. Yet that appears to be the frustrating and infuriating goal of the filibuster rule in the United States Senate, which permits unlimited debate on pending legislation in the Upper House of Congress, unless 60 Senators move to end debate by a vote of cloture)

A "Do Nothing" Government of bickering legislators who block legislation for light and transient causes strikes many voters as a disgraceful waste of time and resources.

Yet Majority Rule in a democratic republic means nothing without respect for Minority Rights, and significant minorities adversely affected by majority rule have a right to stall legislation inimical to their interests, or to the interests of the nation.

The United States Congress is set up into two chambers, the House of Representatives with representation based on population of the several states; and the Senate, whose legislators represent the states in equal measure of two Senators per state.

If one calculates the voting population, the 15 most populace states have a larger contingency of voters. If the majority of states in the Senate wished to pursue legislation adverse to the majority of Americans, then the minority of states (
with the majority of the population) have every right to block legislation inimical to their interests. This stalling procedure forces states large and small, Democratic and Republican, to craft legislation which will appeal to the near majority of Americans, in theory protecting the rights and privileges of all, including the minority states.

In the maddening rush to upend stalling procedures which draw out debate and frustrate legislative efficiency, it would do well for all such impatient partisans to heed the patient observation of Columnist George Will: "We have more to fear from Government haste than Government tardiness," a sentiment proffered long before by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.

He indicts Mexican corruption, then attacks The United State's "insatiable" demand for the drugs flowing North from his country.

Mr. Calderon fails to realize that demand is not a force or entity that can be tarnished or trashed.

His nation has struggled with political legitimacy for years, and yet he insists on blaming Mexico's strongest trading partner and aid in the War on Drugs?

Well, American drug policy is fueling the demand, no question about it.

Corruption is rampant because working with the cartels is better than trying to fight them, and getting shot. Kick backs are lucrative.

Yet the biggest driver of the illegal drug market is the War on Drugs itself. More accurately styled "Prohibition on Steriods," the fight to stop the supply and shipment of illegal substances is a one grand loss. Once again, Big Government is a Big Failure, an agent of force which cannto coerce private habits, no matter how unseemly and anti-social.

The federal governments of Mexico and the United States cannot police their own people and their trade with their Northern/Southern neighbors. No matter how many weapons, state officials, or military personnel step in to stop the Narco Civil War eating up Mexico, it will only drive the drug market underground, drive up the price, and drive out the remaining bastions of civilization from a nation that was once one of the outstanding kindgoms in Meso American and later the Spanish Empire.

Rather than biting at the drug addictions of the North and the greed-infused greasy palms of the South, both the United State and Mexico must declare the War on Drugs a failure, decriminalize, and restore order to the free markets and local government.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

"I'm not afraid of anybody," Waters told the crowd. "This is a tough game. You can't be intimidated. You can't be frightened. And as far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell." (Source, ABC News)

What hell is she speaking of, Congresswoman Waters?

Is she referring to the economic turmoil of her constituents, whose wailing and gnashing of teeth have failed to move the race-baiting Congresswoman and colleagues to promote economic reform that will actually assist recovery?

Is she referring to the stalling tactics of the Tea Party, whose principled opposition to debt ceiling increases in the face of economy-crushing nation debt prevented the liberal opposition from launching another bank-busting stimulus, doomed to fail?

Is she referring to the bloviated myths about Big Government, that a little more money, another public works project, and a whole of left-wing bashing right-wing will reinvigorate an anemic recovery? A stalling recovery rendered moribund by liberal economic policies, which frustrate businesses with shifting regulations, unclear mandates, and temporary tax cuts?

For all the heated rhetoric against the President and the Republican Congress, whom she continues to spuriously lump with the Tea Party Movement, Congresswoman Waters has taken no steps to put out the inferno eating away at her credibility and the economy.

Aside from the inferno of limited-government partisans demanding less intrusion and more freedom to invest and hire, Waters faces the ever-expanding pit of discredited incumbents facing the backlash of voter angst. With the added stressor of redrawn Congressional districts, Waters and Co. may be facing stark challenges to their imperious rule in Congress, where they have laid up treasure for themselves at the expense of the poor and destitute in their districts.

If her political soul is at risk, Waters' caterwauling against the Tea Party will not save her from the final judgment of repudiation and removal from office.

Harassed by terrible working conditions and terrible pay, workers in the past organized into collective bargaining units. As a whole they could negotiate on a more powerful footing with their employers, demanding better wages, stable terms of employment, and respectable working conditions.

However, are their dangers to individual workers who take to collective action to right wrongs done against them?

Stopping abuse by the employer is a credible goal.Unions, now more than ever, represent themselves as separate political entities, independent of the individual interests of their workers, or the clients whom they serve.

For example, public school unions protect the widespread mediocrity of its members, whether they desire it or not. Many teachers have their wages garnished automatically, whether they wish to join or not. However, new teachers are under probation for a set number of years before attaining tenure, at which point they cannot be fired, except in the most egregious cases. Yet through it all, tenured teachers receive the full backing of their unions for no other reason that the union does not want to lose one more due-paying member.

In the midst of the infighting which has hassled school boards and communities, the conflict resolves ultimately on the extent to which school boards must be forced to accommodate the collective wrath of a polity of workers, and to what extent those workers will be allowed to retain their jobs apart from any merit or review.

Since school boards lack credible reason, or power, to challenge the status quo of the public unions, there is little incentive for them to challenge their demands.

This may bode well for many educators, who are content to do just enough or who do not allow the status quo to dissuade them from doing their best. But what about the teachers who seek to work exceptionally, who must struggle to work with staff who refuse to do their jobs, and who fail to prepare students one year, leaving them at a terrible disadvantage for the next?

In this case, unions harm their teachers more than help. Ineffective teachers deserve support and scrutiny, New teachers, who cannot rest in the security of tenure, fall prey to all sorts of political programs and challenges which plague all new members of the profession, yet who need support all the more. In the end, the students also suffer, for they must content themselves to receive a substandard education, which either disillusions them from education in general, making the task of dedicated teachers even harder.

Teachers deserve work-place protection. That need is now met in civil rights legislation, which protects workers from unlawful and unjust and politicized termination. Yet a sclerotic tenure system which embeds mediocrity into a profession is hastening the demoralization and demise of a profession which depends on innovation to secure the best and brightest for our future.

Furthermore, it is unconstituional, if not immoral, to require a teacher to pay dues, whether that person wishes to join the union or not. Beyond that, unions are permitted to spend the money as they wish, solidifying their power, sponsoring initiatives and candidates which support their political monopoly in the system, none of which improves the lot and standing of teachers, their students, or their schools.

For the first time in decades, the East Coast Crowd has experienced a mild shaker, a tremor which Californians of all shakes have endured before, and with much better ease due to natural habit.

Some news outlets mocked the near-panic that engulfed pedestrians struck by the shaking while walking down the street. Some turned, some look around, some ran under awnings, but most had no idea what to do.

In one segment, one reported kindly chided the near uproar that "ensued" in one Virginia backyard, where the lawn furniture were gently cast to the ground as a result of the moderate aftershocks of the earthquake.

While worthy of a moment of mirth, this minor media distraction of has eclipsed the greater earthquake about to strike the nation: the national debt, whose fault lines are undermining the fiscal solvency and stability of this nation, both state-side and abroad.

Political forces are shifting Washington from beneath, demanding that federal politicians face the grave future facing this nation. If they do not get the government's outrageous spending under control, cut annual deficits, and pay off the national debt swallowing this country, we will have no ground to stand on, and there will be no escape from the utter calamity that will tremble through every institution public and private throughout the United States and the world.

An academic issue to most, among those few who are aware that the United States Constitution has more amendments than the perennial Bill of Rights, the 17th Amendment transferred the election of United States Senators from the State legislators to the people of each state.

Before the 17th Amendment was ratified, Senatorial candidates originally campaigned for the seat by appealing not only to the masses in their states, but also securing support for the part and state legislators running for office at the same time. Similar to the electoral process which sends electors to Washington to cast final votes for the President, the legislators took their cues for whom to select for the Senate from their constituents.

The Constitution was designed to mitigate and minimize populist sentiment and to advance elite understanding of the machinations of government. So much did the Framers fear popular uprisings and reprisal as the core workings of American Government that they limited the direct impact of the voting public in shaping the Federal Government.

Only the representation in the House of Representatives would be based on popular election, with each Congressman representing a Congressional district outlined by the state legislatures.

The Senate, the chamber of the legislature originally dedicated to the states, required equal representation for each member represented. For the Framers focused on the needs of the smaller states, they did not want the sparsely populated or geographically limited states of Wyoming and Rhode Island to see their rights and powers and needs marginalized at the hands of the larger states, whose more extensive delegations would easily eclipse their participation in the House of Representatives.

Therefore, to ensure that the Senators would respect the needs of the states, and to mitigate populist sentiment within them, those federal legislators were elected by the State legislators. An ingenious set-up, state legislators would never allow the federal government power grabs which currently characterized Congress, especially the United States Senate.

Would state legislatures support Senators who confirmed Supreme Court Justices limiting the power of the states at the expense of the federal government? Would state legislatures have promoted Senators who impose outrageous regulations on interstate commerce, frustrating the business climate of the several states and intervene needlessly and dangerously in economic realities beyond the scope of the removed U.S. Capitol? State legislatures, because of their inherent elitist and ambitious natures, would serve as the perfect to federal power, foiling power grabs which would circumvent the Constitution, including the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The Progressives of the early 20th century painted the 17th Amendment as a means of putting power directly back in the hands of the people, when in fact they were more interested in inducing an educated populace to enlarge government rather than limit government. A progressive move to increase populist power was a subtle chicanery to muscle in Big Government by the express, short-sighted will of the people.

Now, both chambers, both acting on populist sentiment, have no innate or systemic incentive to block the aggrandizement of the federal government at the expense of the state, made all the worse by the fact that Senators are accountable to those who elect them every six years. Since they must seek the approval of their constituents less frequently, they have less incentive to heed their needs or protect their rights.

If the United States wants to restore the federal government back to its original purpose and scope, limiting government and protecting the rights of states and individuals, repealing the 17th Amendment would be one step in the right direction.

"It is not the business of the law to make anyone good or reverent or moral or clean or upright."--Murray Rothbard

“But if a man do the whole, with the omission of one, he is guilty of the whole, and of every one.” --Talmudic Rabbi Yochanan

One of the fundamental tenets of Judaism is the Law, from the Ten Commandments engraved in stone, to the ceremonial law inscribed on parchment. As a sign of their piety towards God, Orthodox Jews wear a prayer shawl with 619 tassels, representing the 619 laws of Moses recorded in the Torah.

Yet how do the Jews reconcile their adherence to the Law with the following promises from YHWH?:

"But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." (Deuteronomy 30:14)

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jeremiah 31:33)

"And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezechiel 36:27)

The Law does not make us good; it merely shows us up for how bad we are.

The LORD recognized that mankind could not meet the standard of the Law. Always the LORD looked out for his creation, not only safeguarding from the unforeseen consequences, but preparing a way for them to be redeemed, to receive mercy.

For example, the LORD did not cast out Adam and Eve to punish them for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but to prevent them from unredeemable immortality from eating of the Tree of Life:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (Genesis 3:22-23)

He was merciful to the human race from the beginning, even extending mercy to Cain, the first murderer:

"And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. (Genesis 4:13-15)

Cain deserved to be cast off forever, from the presence of the LORD, both from His love and protection. Yet when Cain cried out to the LORD, he did not apologize for his sin, nor did he offer some way to amend his wrong, but he desperately cried out that the punishment was too much for him. And the LORD had mercy on Cain, not just placing a mark on him for his protection, but allowing him to settle a city and produce offspring.

Later, out of mercy the LORD recognized the innate sinful weakness of man after the flood:

"I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." (Genesis 8:21)

Fast forward to the Exodus of the Israelites, who followed the LORD, who lead them out of Egypt, healthy and wealthy, across the Red Sea, through the Wilderness. All that time he fed them and cared for them.

At Mount Sinai, the LORD called for His people to enter into the same covenant as the first believer Abraham, who heard the LORD and followed Him, away from country kith and kin, to the Promised Land.

Abraham believed the LORD, and it was accounted to Him for righteousness." (Gen. 15:6) Abraham was justified by faith, and faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom, 10:17)

Just as Abraham heard the LORD and followed Him, away from country kith and kin, to the Promised Land, so the LORD wanted to bless the descendants of Abraham, who by faith would access the same grace, the same blessings, for themselves and for the whole world.

Before Moses ascended to Mount Sinai, the LORD declared to His people:

"Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’"(Exodus 19:5-6, KJV)

However, unlike faithful father Abraham, his Hebrew descendants presumed on their own efforts, in spite of everything which the LORD had done for them, declaring:

“All that the LORD has spoken we will do!” And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD. The LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also believe in you forever.” (Exodus 19:8-9)

From the moment the Hebrews declared that they could measure up the standards of the LORD, he became dark and foreboding, even menacing on account of the fire and trembling that shook the Earth shortly after. So terrified were the Israelites that they cried out to Moses:

"Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. (Ex 20:19)

They would not heed the LORD's voice directly, but only through Moses, thus refusing the covenant and refusing his voice.

Torah, by definition, means "guidance, instruction." From the beginning, the LORD had intended that His people would follow Him, and he would lead them into righteousness.

David was not just waxing poetical when he declared in the 23rd Psalm, "He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. (v. 3)

Yet man has presumed on his own efforts, that on his own he can measure up to God's standards.

Yet even the Messiah Jesus Christ, restored to the Law to its pristine, unassailable standard, both on the Sermon on the Mount, where he exhorted his listeners" "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt 5:48)

He even exposed to the Pharisees the folly of their pretended righteousness:

"Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?" (Jn. 7:19)

Yet it would be by Jesus' death, and only by his death, that we may receive the righteousness that comes from the Law:

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8:3-4)

and

"For he [God the Father] hath made him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 5:21)

From the beginning, the LORD intended for mankind to live by the Law, but not by his own strength. By the power of the Holy Spirit, who indwells every believer who calls upon the LORD, receiving the sacrifice that Jesus made at the Cross, they may receive the righteousness that comes from the Law plus the Holy Spirit, who leads every believer in the paths of righteousness.

Translation: "The Black man does not exist; no more than the White [man]."

Franz Fanon, Martinican and Marxist psychiatrist, was one of the founding spokesmen for ethnocentric existentialism.

His savage attacks against race relations, encapsulated in his work "Black Skin, White Masks," enraged not just elite white community--both in France and around the world, but the entrenched black communities who relied on racial strife to define their struggle against injustice.

On the surface, a callous turn like "The black man does not exist" seems to repudiate the struggles and legacies of minorities trying to be heard and shape circumstances to better themselves. The following phrase explains the necessity of repudiating the mindset. To the extent that that the White Man exists, the Black man exists; to the contrary, therefore the contrary.

How is this possible? Look no further than the title of the book: Black Skin--the color, the contour, the culture, the class, the criminality of one group (in effect, a select number of elites) imposing on another group of people a set of characteristics not endemic to them in the first place. This hateful arrangement stems from its creator/creation, the White Man [who does not exist, either except as self-imposed myth]. The White Man, or anyone who plays identity politics, certainly live behind masks, yet they also create the Black masks (or falsehoods of any other color)imposed on minorities, including blacks (or Negroes, or African-Americans, as context and circumstance will determine or dictate).

The Black Man does not exist because it is a myth manufactured. Existence, the personal, individual experience of a man, cannot be made or unmade, merely received and developed, whether by informed choice, fraud, or deception by imbibing the propaganda of the powers that be, whether Black or White.

By defining oneself by a color, even in solidarity against an oppressor, one has still engaged in a debate according to terms designed to fail and dispossess the person trying to exist fully, to make of himself more than what others, or even he himself, thinks of himself.

"The Black Man does not exist, no more that the White Man." The whole clash and conflict of race, prejudice, discrimination, is a game, a hateful game have trapped the designed and instigators within the very rules which they unjustly imposed on themselves and others.

If neither the Black Man or the White Man--the myths, the fantasies, the empty notion of race as identity and definition--do not exist, then what has everyone been talking about for the last fifty years?

From the Civil Rights leaders to the Klansmen, from the Nazis to the Religious Zealots of all denominations, the battle of words to define, rectify, and dominate has remained entrenched in the ideal and abstract, forever ignoring the flesh and blood beings who can never be defined or delimited by notions of creed or color.

To resolve the conflicts, to end the hatred that compels (or rather wickedly justifies) people strike before being struck (or stricken), we must do away with labels as lead-in.

The statement literally reads, "The Negro is not, no more than the White." In the original language, Fanon emphasizes that he is discussing types, or typologies, not types of people, for a person can never be a type.

"The Black Man does not exist," because a man cannot exist as a color. . "no more than the white man."

"Talking, Walking, Giving into the White Man. . . " that is how some minorities disdain the attempts by their peers to improve their lot in the world, respect the rule of law and the respect of natural right enshrined in the United States Constitution.

What has it all come to? Natural rights, those enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are for everyone. Enforcing those rights is the sole scope of the United States, which also entails securing the borders of the nation. Yet many feel that these rights, though limited and number yet responding to every fundamental need for a citizen to succeed in his or her society, are not enough. Those who have more by virtue of skill, birth, or chance, are required to offer their fortune to those less fortunate.

In spite of the unequal conditions in which individuals find themselves brought into this world, the United States ensured within the corporate interests of the nation, that the natural rights endowed in each person, applied and outlined in the Bill of Rights to be properly expressed in legal and political contexts, would be made available to all.

The Bill of Rights does not require extensive erudition to be understood, nor should the width and breadth of their interpretation rest in the hands of distant judges, uncommitted academics, or unscrupulous politicians concerned with shaping the outcomes of society as opposed to upholding the rule of law.

In the Constitution, the Framers designed a process, a network of procedures to harness the proper uses of power, preventing the ambition of ruthless crooks and starry-eyed visionaries from imposing their will on a vast diversity of persons, whose hopes, outlooks, skills, desires, hopes, dreams, and limitations--past, present, and future--would forever fall outside the scope of any one intellect to fathom and direct.

It is the height of arrogance that any constituency, that any interest group, especially those suffering under perceived grievances and historicized limitations, need a separate set of rules, or that they are permitted to be exceptions to the rule of law in order to accomplish by outcome what many perceive that they lack because of birth. Injustice at any level cannot be solved in a court of law, even as high as the Supreme Court. Inequality of station should not be interpreted as justification for diminishing the dignity and inherent powers of individuals, whether by welfare or warfare.

The legislatures of cities, states, and the federal government--elected by the people, who must educate and remind themselves of their rights and responsibilities to themselves and each other--are in a better position to rectify political misconduct and abridgement of rights throughout the nation and integrate ongoing technological innovations, which do not challenge the genius of the Constitution. For the unequaled worth of the United States Constitution originates not in predicting the needs or troubles in a growing nation, but provides a stable outline for permitting free people to live freely.

Pushing people to force government to recognize and react to groups based on culture, color, or class only obviates the true intent of the rule of law, as evidenced in the United States' framework of government: let the people elect leaders who respect an stringent respect for the rights of all, engaging the people to themselves while protecting those rights and freedom from enemies domestic and foreign.

Minority Rights mean more than the rights of color, class, or cultural groups.

Minority rights, no matter what their style or substance, were inherently intended to be protected by the United States Constitution, a form of government designed to frustrate populist sentiment and elitist ambition.

Fearing the backlash of mob rule, which would easily target the status and rights of certain groups, the Constitution created a government which distilled popular, state, and elite interests, each competing with one another, into a coherent and deliberate process. A judiciary remained in waiting in the event that legislation or executive action conflicted with one another at the federal or the state level. The Supreme Court, instituted to be the weakest of the three branches of government, would be the last recourse for aggrieved individuals, who could enact change more efficiently and morally in the Legislature.

For minority citizens in the United States who feel discriminated because of race, color, creed, etc., they should look no further than the constitutional checks and balances embedded in the United States government.

Yet many parties would contest that the federal government has done nothing, or not enough to secure the rights of minority states.

In fact, when the government does little more than abide by the extensive limitations of the Constitution, government officials can do nothing more than protect the rights of citizens and secure the borders of the nation. The Framers crafted the Constitution to be at its core a limiting instrument on state control, not and expansive invitation to state power.

When the state undertakes to shape conditions in communities, when the state dictates to individuals what they may or may not do in their homes, when the state entices aggrieved parties in the nation to become dependent on the state out of a sense of endemic helplessness and entitlement, necessarily legislators are pushing past the constitutional limits of their authority.

To wit, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments plainly informed all inhabitants, past present and future, that those rights understood in their communities would not annulled because they were not listed en masse in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights outlined clearly that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution would remain with the states or the people. No two Amendments have been egregiously ignored and trampled on than the Ninth and Tenth, which demand strictures on government power and indirectly permit the free markets and local authority to pursue policies in the best interests of their people.

In the event that local governments violate the limited yet extensive rights of the people, they may exercise their rights, with federal protection, against local leaders and miscreants to safeguard their liberties.

Unfortunately, the growing trend has been for local parties to look to the federal government to enhance entitlements at the expense of taxpayers and the proper limits of government. Now more than ever the United States must press all levels of government back to their constitutionally designated boundaries, the only method for protecting the rights of all without bankrupting the nation financially and morally.

Now that Libya has fallen into the hands of the people, now that the Transitional National Council has come to power, now that Bashar al-Assad's tenuous hold on power has been greatly weakened, what must Iran be thinking now?

Will the Ayatollahs attempt to reach out to the provisional governments which are struggling to reassert authority in their lands?

Will Ahmadinejad soften his rhetoric against the populist tide rising against state-sponsored extremism across the Middle East?

Or will the corrupt ruling elites of Iran hasten their development of Nuclear Weapons, training their aim on the Jewish State? Will they engineer propaganda to tap into the deep-rooted Anti-Semitism which has percolated for years in the Arab World, now ready to be unleashed by the popular chaos which has swept away the "moderate" strong men who held such rancorous sentiment in check?

Whatever moves the Iranian regime makse in the wake of the Arab Spring rising again, they must be getting jittery. Hopefully, the Iranian people will be encouraged by the turn of events in Libya and Syria, and they will rise up again, protesting with greater vehemence against the rigged elections which entrenched Ahmadinejad and his ilk of Muslim fanatics in power.

Rather than depending on the state, whether local, state or federal, to protect the rights of minority, individuals of smaller culture groups need to speak out for limited government and free market reforms.

Constitutional government is the sure method for ensuring the rights of all, no matter how tense the social climate of a community.

The rule of law provides adequate venues for minority peoples to speak out for themselves. Only when government intervenes, attempting to create conditions and outcomes which an isolated elite deem right and fair, do minorities find their opportunities limited, and a self-deluding sense of entitlement blocking them from making a difference in their own lives.

Less government means more responsibility and more freedom. The more we buy into the Nanny State Guilt Trip that minority groups need extra help just to get by, the more counterproductive that help becomes, with a permanent underclass of individuals depending on compulsory handouts from tax payers wasteful strewn about by bureaucrats who want nothing more than to prolong the dependence on the Welfare State.

The Tea Party is about fiscal discipline and constitutional government in the halls of Washington and across the country.

Since when have leaders from ethnic communities across the country drummed up the nonsensical idea that the Tea Party is anti-minority?

Contrary to the contentions of many politicians, free markets and limited government are in the best interests of all Americans of all backgrounds.

From a free-market perspective, a businessman must rely on his power to present and persuade people to purchase his products and services. He cannot afford to discriminate against a prospective customer. Minority leaders who are bad-mouthing the Tea Party are undermining the most effective engine for change and respect in the public square.

Some may counter that segregation laws in the past were enforced because of the particular prejudices of the culture where they were built. Despite the widespread enforcement of the hateful segregation laws imposed against African Americans in the pre-Civil Rights Era South, most shopkeepers in the region opposed the restrictions, knowing that they would hurt their profit margin.

The Montgomery Alabama bus boycott only persisted as long as it did because the busline was subsidized by the state. A private firm would have desegregated at the first hint of public outrage from any core constituency of riders.

It was collusive big government which bankrolled racism from the beginning.

Big Government is the Biggest Problem for all Americans, including minorities.

If voters and consumers fear that they are not being treated fairly in the marketplace or in the public sector, the largest culprit is the unconstitutional growth of government, which in the name of safeguarding fairness and equal outcomes has institutionalized racism. State-run schools forbid parents from enrolling their children wherever they wish, forcing them to endure the run-down public school monopoly, which caters only to bureaucrats and unions, not to families and or the future of our communities.

Minimum wage laws, initially a perceived boon for out of work minorities, create unemployment and force up prices, decreasing the purchasing power of those struggling to work and those who cannot find a job.

Medical mandates like ObamaCare will deprive American of choice when it comes to healthcare. Loading another find on top of other onerous regulations does not spare minority communities from the high costs of health care or other core services.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Rebel forces in Libya fought their "Dear Leader" for six months, and have successfully pushed him from power.

Even if Syrian dissidents fail to organize and an ongoing civil war erupts across the country, Assad can no longer rest assured that he and his minions will fight off the rage of their people much longer.

With the Libyan Transitional National Council taking over security and restoration in Libya, interested Western Powers can dedicate their military forces to pressuring Assad to resign and step down. They also can harness their forces to effect or more peaceful transition into democratic government.

The United States has (belatedly) called for Assad to step down.

Turkey is pressing for Assad's ouster, as well.

Even if anomic political chaos breaks out in the Levantine nation, Israel will have less to fear from manic disorganized hordes than the state-sponsored harassment of the Assad regime along the Golan Heights.

It would appear that the final rout of the Libyan rebels justified President Obama's foreign policy of "kinetic military action" in the civil war.

On the contrary, his unconstitional, and wasteful, foray of American Armed forces is a mere accidental within the wider scheme of British and French pressure, combined with the flagging moral of Loyalist forces who could no longer stem the Arab Spring that has already swept through the neighboring states of Tunisia and Egypt.

President Obama overstretched his powers as Commander in Chief, failing to report or request permission to send American military personnel into the region. The ends do not justify the means.

He insisted that our entry into the North African theater would merely maintain humanitarian protection of the Benghazi stronghold and the rebels safeguarded there. Yet Obama's confused policy did nothing to clarify how our presence was advancing the ouster of Gadhafi and Sons while not targeting them directly-- while yet also bombing their Tripoli compound.

Obama's actions for armed engagement never matched up with his liberal-internationalist rhetoric of coalition reliance, including the increasingly irrelevant NATO. We still committed blood and treasure to another conflict which never fell within the scope of the United States' strategic interest.

And what impact did our forces ultimately play in the Libyan civil war? No matter how strenuously President Obama insists that his warped half-measures hastened victory of the rebels, the world is reeling from the sudden turn of events, bringing down the longest-reigning dictator in the Middle East.

Even if the President can spin the transition of power to the rebels as a plus, he will never be able to shake off the failed domestic policies which have alienated his base and independents, nor his economic agenda, which has merely stalled a recovery which free market forces would have more quickly and efficiently ushered in.

“I’m not afraid of anybody,” Waters said at the summit in Inglewood, Calif. “This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned, the ‘tea party’ can go straight to Hell.” (source, Washington Post)

In point of fact, Congresswoman Waters has plenty to be afraid of. Running for reelection in recast districts which will shake-up her complacent core constituency, she, along with her Congressional colleagues Karen Bass and Laura Richardson, launched a job summit in Inglewood to give the flimsy appearance of caring for the vast number of minority constituents struggling with high unemployment and dim job prospects.

If she really cared about her voters, if she really wanted what is best for the minority interests whom she claims to serve, she would vent more of her frustration at the current Elitist-in-Chief, who insists on running this country on obsolete Keynesian economics. Stimulus packages, extended unemployment benefits, regulation as long as the red-taped eyes of bureaucrats can see, plus a shell game medical mandate have all spooked businesses from expanding and hiring, for they are still guessing as to whether they can invest time and money or not in a still-uncertain economic climate.

Ms. Waters, inundated with scandal and still under scrutiny from the ethics committee in the House of Representatives, has far more to worry about, as in whether the confirmed bloc of African American voters will continue to be strung along be race-baiting Democratic politicians who scream empty epithets at free-market populist movements, which actually have the best interests of this nation in mind.

As if she needed another problem to shake her standing, Waters faces the prospects of an uphill reelection in recommissioned Congressional districts, which may force her to run against other entrenched politicians. Now she will have to justify to her constituents whether her lackluster legacy to secure economic recovery justifies her continued presence in Washington.

The Libyan rebels have taken Tripoli. Finally, the legacy of the Barbary pirates is brought to justice, and by their own, no less.

Rebel forces are ransacking the palaces of the Colonel who styled himself the leader of a 42-year revolution, a revolution 41-years too long.

At last, the instigator of Lockerbie is ousted. The

Mitt Romney's call to recapture, retry, and recondemn Lockerbie Bomber is more than fitting, an evil man whom the United Kingdom heinously handed back to Libya for hapless hospice. Yet until the final downfall of Gadhafi's regime, Abdel Baset al- Megrahi stood by his man, the notorious back-water butcher of North Africa.

The Transitional National Council of Libya is taking power. The world has yet to see if in their plans they will transform their nation from petroleum kleptocracy to Jeffersonian Republicanism, if they do decide on the democratic route.

It's delightfully ironic that for all his self-delusional chanting about his people loving him and would die to protect him, Gadhafi must now accept that his people, who were dying under his rule for decades, were willing to die to get rid of him.

Let us hope that the future of Libya and North Africa will bring forth good things for a brighter future for the entire region.

Shortly after officially entering the Presidential race, Texas Governor and Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry made the following controversial declaration:

“If this guy [Federal Reserve Director Ben Bernanke] prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treacherous, or treasonous, in my opinion.” (Source: Washington Post)

Governor Perry is right! Though an outspoken politician who has let slip crass and off-color remarks at times, his indictment of the subversive economic damage of the eternal-printing press Fed is right on the money (both the figurative and the fiat).

Pushing paper into the system undermines every person's power to purchase, pure and simple. The ugly process has been devaluing our currency for decades, pushing prices up while undermining our savings and enabling Washington to spend, spend, spend; for when the Fed forces fiat money onto the nation, the government gets first dibs to spend the made-up money, taking advantage of stable prices. With all the crap-currency crushing down into lesser and private markets, more money means more buyers willing to spend, which automatically triggers higher prices, erodes confidence in the currency, and plants more power in the hands of the federal government at the expense of the people.

If this shameful cycle of legal fiscal fraud is not treason, then what is?

Finally, the nation is hearing from an executive not afraid to tell it like it is, besides New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. By the way, when was the last time that the Mainstream Media hammered the Sumo Wrestler from Trenton for his brash rhetoric? Seems like an unseemly double-standard, to say the least.

Monday, August 22, 2011

The writer contends that the Works Progress Administration, one of the Alphabet Soup handout organizations established during the Great Depression, would keep "young men off the streets and working". He implies that state-sponsored work projects would improve the morale, if not the money, of current unemployed.

No, the WPA would not work. It did not work then, and it would not work now to get men and women working again, for the short or long haul. Government does not, cannot, should not create jobs. Jean-Baptiste Say, French economist of the nineteenth century, assailed this nonsensical distribution of resources long ago. All the money and labor invested in fixing broken windows, or filling ditches, or painting unnecessary paintings, only transfers wealth which could be just as well, if not better, invested by private persons, partnerships, or corporations.

It is a feel-good illusion that government can push shovel-ready projects to resolve indeterminable unemployment and economic stagnation. Yes, state public works projects get people working, but they do not create sustained employment or expansive wealth. What happens when the state funds run dry? And who, by the way, is paying these state-sponsored workers' salaries? The same tax-payers who cannot get work themselves. Plainly, the government cannot create and sustain lasting economic growth.

Instead of the government mismanaging taxpayer money further, the Federal and state governments need to leave well enough along. The same economist posited convincingly that if we allow markets to correct themselves, with neither help, hindrance, or regulation from the state, supply and demand will even out resources, provided new opportunities for investment, and thus create wealth.

A final word: the writer acknowledges "Not everyone can work for 40 years for the government. But it is a good start." That sentiment may have been true when government had money to spend, or spare. Yet now that government coffers are so sparse, we need to encourage government to make do with the nothing that it still has, and let the people make better use of their own resources.

One Arab Spring, scores of oppressed rising up across the Arab World, and now even the most entrenched of strongmen are being swept away.

What will wash up on shore following the the global rebellious tide against status quo tyranny?

The United States has every right to rejoice, yet we must remain cautious. The Transitional National Council which members states have slowly recognized has yet to show its true colors, friend or foe of the West, Israel, and freedom for its people; or a more savage and radical Muslim regime dedicated to Sharia law.

At any rate, let the world rejoice to see one more outrageous, self-parodying dictator removed forever from power.

Jon Huntsman pushes ahead for the Republican nomination for the Presidency. His executive experience is much needed, much wanted, yet also compromised. Sadly, he is in a bind similar to Romney, who has the practice, but whose legacy is tainted with the very liberalism that they are trying to run against and replace.

Just as Romney proved his prowess as presidential material, unfortunately, in a woefully liberal constituency, Mr. Huntsman is compromised by progressive political drag.

Unlike Romney, who served wholesome in a left-dragging state, Huntsman distinguished himself in one of the reddest states in the Union, and a Mormon community, to boot.

Yet his international star rose in light of his appointment as ambassador to China, an appointment he received from the Lead Liberal Loony himself, President Obama.

Huntsman's resume is crowed out not exclusively by the population he catered for, but the object of Republican, and growing American hatred. A man who served the opposing incumbent will be hard-pressed why he received a diplomatic post from the same man whom he wishes to replace. How will he dismiss the political affinity which drew the two together? Romney has Romneycare, painful reminded of the Obamacare mandate which the majority of Americans wish to repeal. Huntsman has the man himself draining the enthusiasm from his campaign.

Romney can attempt to explain away his state-mandate, or he can denounce it, as he has repudiated his moderate social views. Mr. Huntsman will have to shake free of the positional influence of the man who hired him, the same man whom he would be debating across the country up to election day. Huntsman has more than his work cut out for him.

Yes, Huntsman has the requisite executive experience to be President, and he has served as chief diplomat to China, major rival and reluctant trade partner. Yet his rise in the shadow of the very executive he wishes to replace casts a dark hue over his chances of winning the election, let alone the Republican nomination.

A desperately needed skill, Romney's previous tenure as Governor accords him a talent and traits much needed for the Presidency.

Jon Huntsman is another former governor running for the Republican nation, but the focus on candidate Romney is more pertinent because of his status as long-winning, long-winded, and now winding-down front-runner

Yet his legacy as executive is marred by the status, or state, of his experience, the Bay State, Massachusetts, whose electorate is 3-to-1 liberal, like the City by the Bay.

Running a liberal bastion from a moderate stance makes him damaged goods, or at least a difficult bill of sale.

The biggest set-back, his crowning achievement: Romneycare, the state-mandated insurance program which is hemorrhaging cost overruns while failing to provide every resident of the state with affordable health insurance.

Romney's premier accomplishment as executive, Romneycare is the walking-talking argument against Obamacare, which every Republican Presidential candidate wants to repeal. Romney, wanting to tout his executive experience, must lug a liability as left-leaning as the President he would run against if he were to win the nomination.

It is a shame that a Mormon, born in Michigan to another celebrated governor, cut his teach as a governor in state so liberal, that any finesses and panache he could boast is irrevocably marred with statist policies which will hardly endear him to the fiscal-limited government advocates swelling the ranks of the Republican party, and primaries.

Mr. Romney cannot run against his history. He has experience, yet his legacy hinders an electorate desperate for leadership from assessing his previous practice.

In addition to Romneycare, there are the numerous waffles on social issues, from his failed run against Ted Kennedy to his solidified election wins as governor. Defending a women's right to choose--terminate a baby before birth, and government-sanctioned alternatives to marriage, which now impinge on religious dissent within the Bay: these and other marginal views will inevitable marginalize a once electric and energized front runner, with the necessary executive experience becoming a future President.

If there is one thing that the United States Government desperately needs now, it is leadership. The courage to formulate policies, articulate them, and present them persuasively to the electorate at large. If nothing else, that is the greatest power and potential that the President of the United States possesses.

By these standards, Barack Obama has failed inexorably. He has spent more time walking in lock-step with process politics, articulating nothing reasonable, coherent, or consistent, despite making a repeated, tone-deaf case to the American people for Obamacare, which shifted steadily away from the grander progressive vision of a single-payer system to be transformed into European socialized medicine.

Obama has spent more time collecting, aggrandizing, and witnessing power slip through his effete fingers as the American people push a necessary center-right correction on his far-left agenda.

And still the nation craves leadership.

A junior senator from a liberal Mid-western state with two years of service at the federal preceded by limited engagement in a state legislature, community organizing, and some dazzling speeches at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: not a sufficient resume for a President.

Yet the people elected Obama, the Anti-Bush, Anti-Republican in a year when both were so deeply unpopular, that even left-wing pacifist George McGovern could have been elected.

From January 20, 2009 to today, this country has suffered under a child who wanted to play grown-up. This country needs a leader, someone with executive experience, or a tried and tested composure to move and shake in Beltway politics without sacrificing principle or personality.

A chief executive with previous executive experience--that is a sine qua non for the next President, Democrat or Republican.